D&D General Respeckt Mah Authoritah: Understanding High Trust and the Division of Authority

[CleverNickName]

I don't think any rule is worth more than two minutes of argument at the table. We meet up every week to play D&D, not to debate the rules.

When a rules issue comes up, I'll make a decision quickly just to keep the game moving. Then a day or two later, I'll email everyone with a more carefully-considered decision for the next time the issue comes up, possibly with a retcon. (shrug) If we need to discuss it, it's done with the Reply All button.

This works for me, but I won't tell anyone else how to have a good time. If you and your group truly enjoy debating the rules with each other, don't let anyone stop you.

 

[Hussar]

So now you need to buy 15-20 different books in order to be taught how to DM?

That's not just worse, that's objectively terrible.

But that how DnD has done it since pretty much day 1

 

[Cadence]

But that how DnD has done it since pretty much day 1

I will not stay up figuring out what the 15th - 20th OD&D products were, I will not stay up figuring out what the...

 

[Hussar]

So many of these discussions leave so much context out.

Spending thirty minutes hashing out a rule is very different if you play six or seven hour long sessions and you campaign is expected to last a decade vs a group that plays 2-3 hour sessions but then take a fair bit of time between sessions chatting on Discord.

So many of the reasons b hind points of view have virtually nothing to do with the game itself.

 

[Guest 7042500]

The minimum baseline is not to be perfect, it's to be willing and able to incrementally approach closer to perfection regardless how imperfect you were to begin with.

I mean, hell, when I started I was an awful DM. I'm nowhere near perfect now, but I'd like to think that having learned from many errors I'm better than I was; and that's what counts.

That is the diametrical opposite of what you've been saying up until now.

 

[Guest 7042500]

You clearly run with less stubborn people than do I. The referee can only make a call and keep the game moving if everyone is willing to allow that to happen, but if someone (or several someones) digs in their heels then a discussion is inevitably going to follow - regardless of how often you repeat "The DM is God - Abide or Die" to them.

Don't play with jerks.

 

[p_johnston]

One thing I'm thankful I've cultivated with my group is a high level of trust in that if I'm on the edge about a ruling or decision I can often turn to my players and go "I think that the ruling should be X does that sound correct to everyone?" and I can trust them to be honest even if its bad for them. 90% of the time they'll agree but occasionally they'll shoot back with a different idea and both sides can trust that the other is trying to make a fair and fun decision, not just get an advantage.

 

[Hussar]

I take a different approach. The players often know the rules better that I do, so I lean hard on that and typically let them make interpretations of the rules.

I guess that makes me a low trust environment sort of? The players don’t often have to trust me because I more often than not trust them to know the rules and just tell me.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

But that how DnD has done it since pretty much day 1

That something has traditionally been done badly is not a good reason to stop asking for it to be done better in the future.

I take a different approach. The players often know the rules better that I do, so I lean hard on that and typically let them make interpretations of the rules.

I guess that makes me a low trust environment sort of? The players don’t often have to trust me because I more often than not trust them to know the rules and just tell me.

Hence why I said that this "high-trust"/"low-trust" thing doesn't make sense. The "low-trust" environment is allegedly one where the oversight is supposed to be severe, pushing the employees (players) to do things that defy reason or sense, while the "high trust" environment is supposed to be hands-off, letting employees (players) solve their problems themselves and do what makes sense in context.

Yet the OSR/FKR style....requires that absolutely everything be cleared through one central authority, who is the only person that can make determinations. Players are not trusted with rules, and indeed most discussions of it suggest the best thing to do is to never tell them the rules at all, so the players are wholly dependent on the central authority to even know what is feasible. Far from acting with independence and doing what makes most sense for them, free from overbearing oversight, everything the player does is subject to continuous, mandatory oversight. You literally can't play without it.

There is no room for what you describe, where a player is trusted to know the rules better than the GM does.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

While I do think the idea expecting 20+ books on GMing is too much, I do think APs can serve as helpful examples of play for GMs. I ran PF1 APs for over a decade and I believe they made me a better GM. There is opportunity to expand the knowledge and practice in these products without leaving everything up to a single DMG.

Sure. Examples have value. But examples on their own are not particularly good for teaching newbies.

I don't think we should "[leave] everything up to a single DMG." I think we should strive to make the DMG the best damn teaching book it can possibly be, and keep doing other things that help as well, and add more if we can. Most people learn best by combining multiple sources of information or reinforcement.